TheAgitator.com
As Opposed to “Bloodless War Cheerleading?”
Saturday, December 15th, 2007So what, exactly, is “violent anti-war talk?” Sounds like a polemicist searching for a negative word she can muster, just to marginalize someone she disagrees with. There’s nothing “violent” about being anti-war. Unless you’re blowing up buildings or rioting to punctuate your disagreement. Which Paul isn’t doing, and certainly isn’t advocating.
I realize this is as friendly as the Wall Street Journal is going to get with Ron Paul. So perhaps I shouldn’t pick nits. But really. This is about as bad a case of the pundit’s fallacy as you’ll find:
He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today’s terror world.
Um, he’s with 68 percent of the country when it comes to the war in Iraq. There are only a handful of places left in the country where opposing this war puts one out of the mainstream. I guess the offices of the Wall Street Journal editorial board is probably one of them.
Note also the code words. “Proactive” is a tidy, cleaned-up analogy for “pro-bombing people.” Paul has a foreign policy. It’s to hit back only when hit, and only against the person who hit you. Otherwise, it’s hands-off, governmnent-free peaceful trade and engagement among private parties across international borders.
Then there’s that condescending, pejorative put-down: “unserious.” I’ve explained at length the inconvenient truth behind that slur: the “unserious” people have consistently been right about this war, while the “serious” people have consistently been wrong.
Again, Paul does have a few kooky positions, though no worse than some of the crap espoused by the rest of the candidates. But opposing this awful war isn’t one of them. And agree or disagree with him on that particular issue, his position is neither fringe, unserious, nor “violent”–whatever that means.
Perhaps she meant “virulent”, rather than “violent”. Not that it helps her argument any.
It seems pretty clear that “unserious” means “doesn’t agree with me,” in this case. Intellectually honest people can acknowledge others as serious opponents of the things they believe. Those who write in the way that Ms. Strassel does are clearly trying to belittle an opponent when she can’t honestly address his ideas.
“It’s to hit back only when hit, and only against the person who hit you.”
I don’t believe Paul. He’s a politician, after all, and so he must lie sometimes. And I believe that he’s lying when he says he’d hit back. I don’t think he’d even hit back even after we were hit. He’d probably just sit there. He has demonstrated absolutely zero conviction towards our national defense. His attitude is very telling. I just don’t trust him at all to protect Americans, period.
Sydney, what has led you to this opinion of Paul? He has repeatedly say that if the country were attacked and Congress declared war, then he’d wage war against the aggressor. Why do you think this is a lie?
Sydney, are you suggesting that Dr. Paul is a closet pacifist?
And even if he were, and he were obfuscating his philosophy on foreign policy to win the GOP nomination…don’t you think he would obfuscate it to the point where it fell in line with the GOP mainstream???
“He has repeatedly say that if the country were attacked and Congress declared war, then he’d wage war against the aggressor. Why do you think this is a lie?”
I don’t think Paul is necessarily a pacifist, as it is that he thinks war is expensive and creates big government, and so has an ideological opposition to engage in war, even if America is attacked. It’s not enough for him that our buildings would be bombed by terrorist states and their proxies, or that our overseas military would be attacked. I think that for Paul to do anything, America would have to be INVADED.
He has a much greater commitment to cutting government spending than he does keeping me safe from another 9/11.
You’re in much more danger of dying from an auto accident than you are from “another 9/11.” By your logic, a president should make “protecting us from highway death” his No. 1 priority.
As horrendous as the terrorist attacks of 2001 were, there are other (much bigger) problems faced by the average person. The threat of “another 9/11″ is theoretical. The reality of big government eating up our resources is real and growing every day. I know which ones scares me the most personally.
Sydney, you need to think your critisim of Ron Paul through a little more.
“our buildings would be bombed by terrorist states”, I am pretty sure that this would be considered an invasion (scale is irrevelant).
“overseas military would be attacked.” There would be little to no overseas military with Ron Paul. I guess we might have the navy/marines deployed AT sea. But that is significantly different.
So your your critisim boils down to…I don’t like him?
David: “The threat of “another 9/11″ is theoretical. The reality of big government eating up our resources is real and growing every day. I know which ones scares me the most personally.”
You’re not going a good job to convince me that Paul is serious about our defense. In fact, you seem to be conceding the point that he’s not. How’s this for a campaign slogan: “Your safety is only theoretical! But the expansive welfare state that will hit us in 20XX is not!” Hmmm… not a good slogan after all.
Lee: “I am pretty sure that this would be considered an invasion.”
See, I’m not. Paul has given me no assurance on that matter whatsoever.
“There would be little to no overseas military with Ron Paul.”
I knew you were going to say that, but it’s irrelevant. Embasies would be bombed instead. Paul would ignore those as well. How many embasies do you want to lose?
“So your your critisim boils down to…I don’t like him?”
Um, no. I think he’s unserious about defense. I’m sure he’s a very nice man. However, if all you have for a defense of Paul’s national security policy is to suggest critics don’t like him, then I guess I was right in my view that he’s not serious about it.
Sydney, I’m not conceding anything. I’m merely making the point that you’re trying to elevate a threat to “all everything” status that shouldn’t be there. You’re ignoring the fact that we are very, very safe — if you look at actual statistics instead of listen to media scare stories. Terrorism gets a lot of headlines, but it’s nowhere NEAR the biggest problem this country faces. It’s only rhetoric such as yours that causes politicians to promise to do stupid things that shouldn’t be done.
You’re taking a position which there’s no evidence for (that Ron Paul wouldn’t defend the country against attack from another country) and trying to maintain that it must be true if others don’t show evidence to the contrary. You’re the one making the unsupported accusation, so the burden of proof is on YOU.
“Paul would ignore those as well”
Ron Paul as President would have no say in the matter (I know this is a tough concept for you to get your head around).
Regarding attacks on our country what Congress ignores, Ron Paul would ignore. So your problem is that you do not believe Congress would be up to the task of defending our country.
He would actually follow the law as established by the Constitution and not go whilly-nilly invading countries that because he had a hard-on for them. If Congress declared war on a country, I feel very confident he would bomb our target into a great big parking lot if need be and not screw around.
FYI, you really really need to read Balko’s post on the ‘unserious’ accusation. Using it in comments on this site is not such a wise idea.
David,
The burden of proof is on me to show that Paul can be trusted with our national security? Really? Last I checked, I wasn’t running for office, he was. If he wants my vote, he’s gotta earn it.
Lee,
I am increasingly convinced that Ron Paul is not serious about national defense. Arguing that he’d have no say in the matter is basically telling me that for my defense I have to rely upon Nancy Pelosi. Now, I’m all in favor of Congress declaring war. But national security consists of MUCH more than that, and the primary responsibility is with the President, not Congress. Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I refer you to Federalist No. 70, written by Alexander Hamilton: “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice, to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy.”
If your entire argument boils down to the fact that once Congress declares war, Paul will say to the army “go”, then what the heck good is he as President?
This certainly tears down anything that was left of the idea that the WSJ supports free markets. It’s clearly a corporatist publication seeking corporate welfare and (militarily) subsidized oil prices.
Sydney - Among the current candidates, who stands out in your mind in terms of national security?
One thing not mentioned above is that we are a lot less likely to be attacked at all with a foreign policy such as Paul favors.
I also liked “today’s terror world”. Unlike, say, yesterday’s, or maybe even the terror world that existed before 9/11. Now it is all so different.
What?
I honestly can’t tell if these people are just hyper partisan, or pathologically paranoid.
Syndey,
You quoted that in trying to attack Ron’s position. You do realize that it actually enforces his position and is critical of Bush’s….right?
Lee,
What position of Bush or Paul? I’m talking about the freaking executive branch verses Congress. Which is what Hamilton is talking about. If you pulled your head out of your butt long enough, you’d see that your pathetic idea of Congress declaring war as being solely sufficient to deal with national security is absolutely refuted by Hamilton’s appeal to “energy in the executive.”
Now, go and find me a writing of the Framers that says that the Presidency “would have no say in the matter” of national defense. What’s that? At a loss? Oh, what a freaking shame…